American Thinker has described global warming as a hoax. Back on May 3 2020 they described the COVID pandemic as a hoax and you can’t be wrong all the time.
I would say that post industrialization air quality issues blocked a lot of sunlight from entering the atmosphere and led to global cooling. In fact during the late 70’s scientists thought we were entering another ice age. I believe you have proposed similar ideas to take care of global warming. Anyway this chart is a bit misleading in that context IMO.
In the 70s, over six times as many academic papers were predicting warming than were predicting cooling. Newsweek running an article picking up on one of the papers predicting cooling does not mean that’s what scientists actually thought.
3 Likes
I’m not sure that’s true. There was a lot of sulfer in the air during the 70’s. That is specifically what some are proposing to do again to help stave off warming.
Also I’m not trying to debate global warming, just stating that image is out of context a bit.
3 Likes
Yes, it did cool a little. I don’t think the chart would look much different over a 100 year timeline. Maybe a bit more noisy in the middle? But I’m not sure.
And yes, you’re right, I am pro-geoengineering. Or at least, I want us to test it now.
The larger context is that at the beginning of the 20th century, scientists thought that relatively slow mineral processes changed the environment, similar to mountains moving.
By the 70s it was relatively clear that was not true. Atmospheric changes could happen much faster. CO2 would heat things up. I’m not surprised that a few people thought it might be cooling.
However, the debate was not really between cooling or heating. It was atmospheric processes making fast changes vs slow mineral changes.
What’s funny to me is that we became sure of this shit in the 80’s, when it was basically all theoretical.
Now global warming actually happened. And we’re like… “…oh I don’t know, did it?”
One of the runaway warming scenarios is that the oceans all boil off, dramatically increasing the greenhouse effect. If that happens, the Earth would be much hotter than Venus.
Ah yeah, that’s true, one thing could lead to another, and then wait what did you say?
I have a random question:
Does a redistribution of wealth increase global warming?
I often hear that the 1% contributes a lot, yada yada yada, but I never see the $$$s next to the CO2 emissions.
I suspect? if the billionaires sold their private jets, and gave that money to rice farmers, then the rice farmers would buy cars, and we’d have a net increase in emissions.
Seems to make sense. I think the carbon intensity of lifestyle is non linear function of wealth. Probably inflection points like increase in air travel. However, a extensive redistribution of wealth may have unexpected consequences.
My little monster turned 6 so I bought her a sled.
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/philadelphia/most-yearly-snow
Oops.
Canada is on fire. As usual, some people blame climate change (record temperatures, record drought, record lightning), and others blame land development / lack of intentional fires / dumb luck.
Random question:
If we get enough of these crazy record-setting fires, will all the trees just burn down and then we won’t have any more record-setting fires?
In other news the long La Nina is ending, so expect more news.
My father the other day questioned why we should plant forests to fight climate change, to improve air quality, if those planted forests are just going to burn and reduce air quality.
I honestly didn’t know what to say to such a Trumpian claim from my formerly very much non Trumpian.
Its not “Trumpian” though.
Its just a lack of scientific education.
It’s lack of logic and tying kind of random thoughts together. Trumpian to me.
I think it’s sort of reasonable. I would expect the “plant trees” peoole take wildfires into consideration.
(Though I’m not sure anyone seriously advocates just planting trees)
Ok y’all can chat further with my dad on this matter
1 Like